May 15
Template:Eif
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete as unsalvageable, along with ((ReturnInput)) the (equally useless) template which it calls. Happy‑melon 18:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Eif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template broken by changes in how wikimedia handles "=" in parameters, so template no longer works. Withdraw delete request if someone knows of a way to fix this template, but AFAIK there's no way to do that. — System86 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not only can I see no way of fixing this [although I only had a cursory look], but the template is deprecated and orphaned. I fail to see where this template would be useful, and any possible uses can probably be coded in manually unless they require the function across many pages. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:34, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 19:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Resolved comments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant to ((Resolved)) and ((hide)), but without their functionality. It does not include the possibility of a signature and timestamp being shown in the cap. It is being used disruptively throughout WP:FAC and WP:FLC to hide comments without the benefit of a signature and timestamp, so it's difficult to determine who capped the comments. The other templates (Resolved and Hide) serve the purpose of capping off resolved comments, while including a signature and date/time to show who capped them and when. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this template is disruptive to FAC and can be used to hide other people's comments without signing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per above, it is disruptive and there are much better alternatives.Stu pendousmat (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate delete There have been quite a few issues with the template, and so I actually wouldn't mind seeing it done away with. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Merge I don't know if there is a template redirect or a merge possibility, but simply deleting the template will cause havoc to WP:FAC and WP:FLC arcives.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will have no effect on FAC archives, as I remove this template whenever it occurs. We can't have unsigned hiding of comments at FAC, and I made that clear early on, and it has always been part of the WP:FAC instructions that caps must be signed. Since there are very few editors using this template, in spite of these issues being highlighted from the moment the script was created, they should correct their unsigned caps at FLC themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete It seems my ignorance regarding the use of this template has stimulated this deletion debate, but I wonder why this couldn't be fixed by changing the template. I have some moderate skill with parser functions and template creation, this could easily be fixed with five minutes of work. Although I have no idea how it will affect the archives, which is another issue that affects the deletion of this template. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you change the template, it merely duplicates hide and resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked what links to the rs template and there are so few that any pages affected by deletion of this template could easily be fixed without bot intervention if anyone really wanted to do so. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's currently used in two Roads peer reviews, four Featured list reviews, and one Portal review, by only a couple of editors.[1] Thankfully, it hasn't done too much damage, and deleting it won't wreak havoc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may not be used at FAC per Sandy's removal, but it is being used at other discussions (I found this one via a FPoC). Please, before deleting, ensure that it has been replaced by ((resolved)) or ((hide)). Thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It is redundant and inferior to the alternatives. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to be more of a problem than an asset.GrahamColmTalk 15:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --- RockMFR 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Italian football club logo templates TfD. These templates are exactly the same, except Spanish clubs instead of Italian clubs. – PeeJay 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Irish songs
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Irish songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
previous nom as per the reasons listed as the previous nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patriotic songs Gnevin (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. Like the recently deleted list, this template is an arbitrary collection with no clear inclusion criteria. If it's just a list of notable songs from Ireland (as the template name suggests) then this template is deeply skewed towards songs celebtrating nationalism or republicanism, and most of it looks like a list culled from songs recorded by republican band The Wolfe Tones. If the template title "Patriotic music of Ireland" is the intent, then it's deeply POV: songs such as Say Hello to the Provos and Little Armalite are in praise of the Provisional IRA, which is a paramilitary organisation banned by the Irish government, and since the majority of Irish people who don't support the Provisional IRA, it's deeply partisan to describe such songs as "patriotic" (supporters of the Provisional IRA would indeed describe them that way, but that's a minority view) — while U2's very popular song Sunday Bloody Sunday (written from a very different perspective) has just as great a claim to be regarded as "patriotic", and so do the apolitical The Bells of Shandon and Banks of my own lovely Lee.
I can't see any definition of "patriotic" which isn't POV in Ireland, and whatever the inclusion criteria, I can't see any way of avoiding a list defined that way from becoming a highly POV form of original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and BrownHairedGirl. Appears to be an arbitrary collection, with no clear inclusion criteria, and therefore services no purpose as a navigation aid. (Personally I can see no value or reason for "grouping" a song like The Sash with a song like Oró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile. It's akin to creating a template called "American songs" and grouping Stars and Stripes Forever with I've Been Working on the Railroad.) In short, it's pointless. Guliolopez (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BrownHairedGirl and my reason in the previous nomination: the template inherently requires original interpretation, as one cannot both objectively and non-arbitrarily judge whether a song is 'patriotic', since the meaning of the term itself is ambiguous. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Redirect to ((reflist)) Happy‑melon 20:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:FootnotesSmall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Seems redundant. We have both <references/> and ((reflist)) if people want different sizes. FYI, the template was previously nominated here. — Rockfang (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree, redundant. No use for this at all, can all be replaced with ((reflist)). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant; I'd guess that Wikimedia coding is somewhat more advanced since 2006, since the other TFD doesn't seem to know about ((Reflist)). Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant to ((reflist)). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this closes as delete, I'll switch over any articles that use this to ((reflist)).--Rockfang (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. Midorihanacontribs~ userpage 06:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. --Eustress (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into reflist - with the advancement of reflist, this template becomes redundant. However we must make sure every occurrence is replaced with a corresponding reflist presentation before the template is deleted. --Deryck C. 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace all instances with ((reflist)). –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as both listed above could perform the same function. Kresock (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pointless Hello963 (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deprecate, replace with ((reflist)) as per Deryck C and Black Falcon. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:TooManyTags
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --- RockMFR 06:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:TooManyTags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Has a couple of problems:
Supposedly this should be used to tag articles with too many tags: of course, this adds yet another tag to a page with too many tags already, worsening the problem it's supposed to solve. Also, as the template itself says, there's already a template used for consolidating issue tags: ((articleissues)). If you're going to spend the time to use this template, you might as well spend the extra 2 seconds to use ((articleissues)).— Aervanath's signature is boring 03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't see that it fulfills any useful purpose; it's also not transcluded in any articles. The template was created with a slighlty different wording [2], with a smack of WP:POINT; well the point has been made, I think we can delete it now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It worsens the problem it's supposed to solve; additionally, ((articleissues)) is a better template to use. Midorihanacontribs~ userpage 06:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the creation of the template Article Issues in which multiple cleanup templates can be rolled into one, this template is redunant.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I don't even see the point of it. It seems like one of those "ironic joke templates" just serving as a testiment to how people barely care about fixing the problems anymore and just leave someone else to do it. ViperSnake151 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - exacerbates the problem it tries to bring to attention, probably a joke template. Useless in any case. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:36, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, kind of a self-contradictory template. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet another redundant template, saying what any reader/editor could ascertain without any help. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it's so stupid it made me laugh out loud to find out about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 20:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Footer Movies Chiranjeevi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete poorly named template for films linked only by a single actor. We have long since estaglished that it is impractical to create performer by performance templates for every actor. — Doczilla STOMP! 02:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Good Liar Barnstar
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Deleted per CSD G7. Non-admin closure. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 05:06, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Good Liar Barnstar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not sure how to categorize this—a WP:HOAX, a violation of WP:POINT—but it tries to reward people for breaking Wikipedia guidelines. The author even rewarded himself with the award. Anyway, this one doesn't pass the "smell test" and I hope others will weigh in. — Eustress (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OK. Creator here saying that maybe that wasn't such a good idea. I vote for the delete. flaminglawyerc 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also put it up for CSD for "author requesting deletion," so we shouldn't have to deal with it here anymore. flaminglawyerc 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:PD-LOC
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:PD-LOC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deprecated image license tag that has now been removed from all usages. The associated Category:LOC images needing copyright status check can also be deleted. Kelly hi! 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Does this interact at all with the LOC page at Commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:LOC_images_needing_copyright_status_check ? Guroadrunner (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, other than the fact that both were the result of the PD-LOC template being deprecated both here and at Commons. Kelly hi! 02:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Assuming it is indeed deprecated, there's no need to keep this template. Terraxos (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:User Shia 2
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Userfy - moved to User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive/User Shia 2, per Richard0162's generous offer. Happy‑melon 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:User Shia 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It is the same template as Template:Shia. So one of them should be deleted.
. BigDevil Talk 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this one does not have any User in its title page.BigDevil Talk 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Shia one, I think Userboxes are supposed to have User in their page name. ViperSnake151 18:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the one without 'user' and Userfy the other. AFAIK, political/religious userboxen are best kept in userspace per WP:UBM. Feel free to move to my UBX archive. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:39, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
- Userfy both ((User Shia 2)) and ((User Shia)). I disagree with BigDevil that these say the same thing (User Shia says "devout Shi'a Moslem" while User Shia 2 implies a less devout belief), but I do agree that religious userboxes definitely belong in userspace.--Aervanath's signature is boring 18:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.